The physical possession of the land and tendering of compensation discharge the state's obligation, and the land essential for public purpose cannot be released from acquisition.

JUDGMENT

Ravi Shanker Jha, C. J. - The controversy involved in the matter at hand revolves around the applicability of Section 24 (2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, 'the Act of 2013') onto the facts of the case wherein the award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was announced on 02.03.2006 i.e. more than five years prior to the commencement of the Act of 2013 on 01.01.2014 and as contended by the petitioners, neither the possession of the land has been taken by the State nor compensation has been paid/deposited till date. In view of said facts, prayer has been made to declare that the acquisition proceedings have lapsed under Section 24 (2) of the Act of 2013.

2. The interpretation of Section 24 (2) of the Act of 2013 had remained under cloud for long until it finally came to be decided by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and others SLP (C) 9036-9038 of 2016, whereby the Apex Court has laid down the guiding principles in order to decide whether in given facts and circumstances, the acquisition proceedings can be declared to have been lapsed in view of deeming fiction provided under Section 24 (2) of the Act of 2013. The concluding paragraph 363 of the judgment is reproduced here-in-below:-

'.... 1. Under the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) in case the award is not made as on 1.1.2014 the date of commencement of Act of 2013, there is no lapse of proceedings. Compensation has to be determined under the provisions ofAct of2013.

2. In case the award has been passed within the window period offive years excluding the period covered by an interim order of the court, then proceedings shall continue as provided under Section 24(1)(b) of the Act of 2013 under the Act of 1894 as if it has not been repealed.

3. The word 'or' used in Section 24(2) between possession and compensation has to be read as 'nor' or as 'and'. The deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 takes place where due to inaction of authorities for five years or more prior to commencement of the said Act, the possession of land has not been taken nor compensation has been paid. In other words, in case possession has been taken, compensation has not been paid then there is no lapse. Similarly, if compensation has been paid, possession has not been taken then there is no lapse.

4. The expression 'paid' in the main part of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 does not include a deposit of compensation in court. The consequence of non-deposit is provided in proviso to Section 24(2) in case it has not been deposited with respect to majority of land holdings then all beneficiaries (landowners) as on the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2013. In case the obligation under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 has not been fulfilled, interest under Section 34 of the said Act can be granted. Non-deposit of compensation (in court) does not result in the lapse of land acquisition proceedings. In case of nondeposit with respect to the majority of holdings for five years or more, compensation under the Act of 2013 has to be paid to the "landowners" as on the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the Act of 1894.

5. In case a person has been tendered the compensation as provided under Section 31(1) of the Act of 1894, it is not open to him to claim that acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) due to non-payment or nondeposit of compensation in court. The obligation to pay is complete by tendering the amount under Section 31(1). Land owners who had refused to accept compensation or who sought reference for higher compensation, cannot claim that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013.